Park v. Stolzheise

• Decision Date: 25 March 1946
• Docket Number: 29774.
• Citation: 167 P.2d 412,24 Wn.2d 781
• Parties: PARK et al. v. STOLZHEISE et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

167 P.2d 412

24 Wn.2d 781

PARK et al. v. STOLZHEISE et ux.

No. 29774.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 25, 1946

Department 1

Action by Robert H. Park and wife and others against Ralph M Stolzheise and wife, to enjoin the defendants from violating provisions of zoning resolutions previously adopted by King County Planning Commission and board of county commissions of that county, and to enjoin the defendants from conducting a sanitarium for mental cases upon real property located within the area covered by the zoning resolution, wherein ten additional parties intervened seeking the same relief. From a decree granting the relief sought, the defendants appeal.

Decree modified, and as so modified, affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Howard M. Findley, judge.

Lewis L. Stedman, of Seattle, for appellants.

Chavelle & Chavelle, of Seattle, for respondents.

STEINERT Justice.

Plaintiffs instituted in the superior court for King county an action seeking to enjoin the defendants from violating the provisions of a certain zoning resolution previously recommended and adopted by the King county planning commission and the board of county commissioners of that county, and, further, to enjoin the defendants from conducting, operating, and maintaining a sanitarium for mental cases upon certain real property located within the area covered by the zoning resolution. Ten additional parties intervened in the action, seeking the same relief. Defendants answered, admitting in part, but for the most part denying the material allegations in the several complaints and, in addition, setting up an affirmative defense, the allegations of which were in turn denied by the plaintiffs in their reply. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and after a trial covering a period of nine days, a decree was entered granting the relief sought. Defendants appealed.

Appellant Ralph M. Stolzheise, to whom we shall hereinafter refer as though he were the sole appellant, is a physician and surgeon specializing in neuropsychiatry, including the treatment and care of persons suffering from mental ailments. For some time prior to May 8, 1944, appellant had been considering, and was desirous of consummating, a purchase of property that could be used for the 'care, treatment, and education of individuals who show symptoms of impending mental breakdown.' Through the efforts of an experienced real-estate broker, his search was directed to a tract of land consisting of about seven and one-half acres adjacent to Marine View road and fronting on Puget Sound, near Zenith, which is about 12 miles south of the south city limits of Seattle. This tract, which was then owned by Eigil Buschmann and his wife, Nora Buschmann, has a water frontage of 400 feet, and constituted a country estate, having upon it a large manor house of ten or twelve rooms, a guest house, a barn, chicken houses, and other structures. A sizeable stream runs through the land, and the buildings are supplied with water through a connected pumping system. The premises were improved with lawns, shrubbery, and flowers, and commanded an unobstructed view of the Sound to the north and to the south. The place had been occupied by the Buschmanns as a home for about eighteen years and was considered one of the show places of western Washington. Mr. Buschmann had at times maintained thereon deer, pheasants, and an assortment of fine chickens.

Extending along the water front for considerable distances in both directions from the Buschman property are many elegant residences which had been constructed at considerable cost during the intervening years. Among these are several that were valued at thirty thousand dollars or more, and many that were worth in excess of ten thousand dollars. The general community is easily accessible over well improved roads leading from and to the city of Seattle, and at the same time is highly desirable for the establishment of substantial permanent homes; it is peculiarly adapted for settlement and use by families having young children.

Departing for the moment from the factual thread of events, and for the present turning our attention to what may be called the legal background of those events, we shall at this point refer to the zoning law and regulations which underlie this controversy.

In 1935 the legislature enacted chapter 44, Laws of that year, page 115, Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.) § 9322-1 et seq., authorizing the creation of planning commissions by cities, towns, and counties, and empowering such creative municipalities to adopt and enforce coordinated plans, prepared by their respective commissions, for the physical development of the municipality. For that purpose, and to the extent deemed reasonably necessary or equisite in the interest of health, safety, morals, and the general welfare, the city council or the board of county commissioners of the creating municipality was authorized to adopt general ordinances or general resolutions, recommended by its commission, regulating and restricting the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for residence, trade, industrial, and other purposes. The act further authorized the municipality, on recommendation of its commission, to divide its area, or any part thereof, into as many districts as it deemed suitable for the purposes of the act and to regulate and restrict within such districts the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use of buildings, structures, or land, all of such regulations to be devised as parts of a comprehensive plan which was to be prepared by such commission for the physical and other generally advantageous development of the municipality, and designed to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipal territory.

Pursuant to the legislative act of 1935, the board of county commissioners of King county on June 2, 1937, adopted 'General Resolution Number 6494' establishing land classifications and districts within the unincorporated territory of King county, regulating the uses of property therein, adopting a map dividing the county into areas, and providing for the adoption of individual sectional area district maps showing classified use districts.

Section 1 of the resolution provides: 'For the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, and in order (1) to secure for the citizens of King County the social and economic advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of the land resources within the County; (2) to regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land for residence, trade, industrial and other purposes * * *; (3) to provide definite official land use plans for property publicly and privately owned within King County; and (4) to guide, control and regulate the future growth and development of said County in accordance with said plans, there is hereby adopted and established official Districting Plans for King County pursuant to the authority of Chapter 44, Laws of Washington for 1935.'

In order to classify, regulate, restrict, and segregate the uses of land, buildings, and structures, section 3 of the resolution divides the unincorporated territory of King county into various classes of use districts denominated, respectively, residence, suburban, agricultural, business, commercial, manufacturing, industrial, forestry, forestry recreational, watershed, landing field, and unclassified districts. In the present action, we are concerned with only three of these classifications, designated R-1 (residence), R-3 (residence), and U-1 (unclassified) districts. Classification R-1 does not permit the land so classed to be used for hospitals and sanitariums; classification R-3, however, does permit such uses, as does also classification U-1, to which we will more particularly refer a little later herein.

Other subdivisions of section 3 provide that the boundaries of such use districts shall be determined and defined from time to time by the adoption of sectional area district maps covering portions of the county, each of which sectional area district maps shall be, upon its final adoption, a part of the official master plan of the county; also that each sectional area district map, after its final adoption, shall be and become a part of resolution number 6494, and such map and all information shown thereon shall be as much a part of the resolution as if they were fully described therein; and that the boundaries of such use districts as are shown upon any adopted sectional area district map are thereby likewise adopted as part of the original resolution, and the regulations prescribed by the resolution governing the uses of land, buildings, and structures are declared to be effective as to all land included within the boundaries of each and every use district shown upon each of such sectional area district maps.

Section 4 of the resolution provides:

(1) 'All the unincorporated territory of King County, including the National Forest and all publicly and privately owned land therein is hereby designated and established as a U-1 (Unclassified) District and shown on a map divided into sectional areas numbered from 1 to 65 inclusive, which said map is hereby adopted, made a part of this resolution, and designated Area District Map of King County, Washington.

(2) 'Except as provided in Section 19 (p. 18) of this resolution, any land, building, structure or premises in the U-1 (Unclassified) District may be used, occupied or maintained for any purpose.' (Italics ours.)

Section 19, referred to in subdivision (2) just quoted, relates to unclassified district regulations and permits any use in such districts not otherwise prohibited by law nor falling within certain specified...